-
Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »
What blood sugar levels?
- Thread starter Super D
- Start Date
cugila
Master
- Messages
- 10,272
- Location
- Sutton Coldfield, West Midlands
- Dislikes
- People who are touchy.......feign indignation at the slightest thing. Hypocrites, bullies and cowards.
Hi SuperD.
Welcome to the forum.
As a T2 the NICE 2009 guidelines for a Diabetic are as follows:
Fasting (waking) ................between 4 - 7 mmol/l.
2 hrs after meals................no more than 8.5 mmol/l.
If you can get the after meal levels lower then so much the better.
Welcome to the forum.
As a T2 the NICE 2009 guidelines for a Diabetic are as follows:
Fasting (waking) ................between 4 - 7 mmol/l.
2 hrs after meals................no more than 8.5 mmol/l.
If you can get the after meal levels lower then so much the better.
hanadr
Expert
- Messages
- 8,157
- Dislikes
- soaps on telly and people talking about the characters as if they were real.
Super D
I don't care what levels are normal for T2 diabetics, I only care what are normal for NON-diabetics. I can see no sense in any other target. ( That includes NICE guidelines.)
Healthy Non diabetics keep at around 4.7 and don't vary by much from there. And if they do it's only for a short time.
Double figures are in the danger zone.
You shouldn't come to any harm at 3.5 even though it's officially hypo. Non-diabetics go that low quite frequently, when hungry.
It isn't easy to keep to non-diabetic levels, but it's probably the only way to avoid complications. It needs dedication and, at least initially, loads of testing.
I have a theory that NICE targets are based on what some committee thought was possible, not on what is right.
There's so much emphasis on avoiding hypos, that the dangers of hyperglycaemia seem to have been brushed aside.
I don't care what levels are normal for T2 diabetics, I only care what are normal for NON-diabetics. I can see no sense in any other target. ( That includes NICE guidelines.)
Healthy Non diabetics keep at around 4.7 and don't vary by much from there. And if they do it's only for a short time.
Double figures are in the danger zone.
You shouldn't come to any harm at 3.5 even though it's officially hypo. Non-diabetics go that low quite frequently, when hungry.
It isn't easy to keep to non-diabetic levels, but it's probably the only way to avoid complications. It needs dedication and, at least initially, loads of testing.
I have a theory that NICE targets are based on what some committee thought was possible, not on what is right.
There's so much emphasis on avoiding hypos, that the dangers of hyperglycaemia seem to have been brushed aside.
cugila
Master
- Messages
- 10,272
- Location
- Sutton Coldfield, West Midlands
- Dislikes
- People who are touchy.......feign indignation at the slightest thing. Hypocrites, bullies and cowards.
Hana.
I don't care what YOUR readings are. :?
That question was asked by a newly diagnosed person. One month ago.
Therefore we give out the correct information regarding 2009 NICE guidelines. I don't stick to them either but it is a little disconcerting for a new member who needs encouraging to get lower numbers to be suddenly told you need to get non-diabetic numbers ?? Especially after the question asked was answered properly.
We are Diabetics. Let's take things one step at a time !
As for your comment about hypo's - have you ever suffered from them ?
I have, several times recently and apart from feeling '****' my concentration is affected, my co-ordination goes haywire. As I drive long distances quite often, then it is foolish of me to just ignore them as of no real consequence. Try telling that to the Police when you have an accident ....not going to get you out of trouble. More likely to get you into even more.
A hypo is always something to be avoided and the medical opinion is that anything below 4 mmol/l is a hypo and is not recommended for all sorts of reasons, one of which is the health risks.
I don't care what YOUR readings are. :?
That question was asked by a newly diagnosed person. One month ago.
Therefore we give out the correct information regarding 2009 NICE guidelines. I don't stick to them either but it is a little disconcerting for a new member who needs encouraging to get lower numbers to be suddenly told you need to get non-diabetic numbers ?? Especially after the question asked was answered properly.
We are Diabetics. Let's take things one step at a time !
As for your comment about hypo's - have you ever suffered from them ?
I have, several times recently and apart from feeling '****' my concentration is affected, my co-ordination goes haywire. As I drive long distances quite often, then it is foolish of me to just ignore them as of no real consequence. Try telling that to the Police when you have an accident ....not going to get you out of trouble. More likely to get you into even more.
A hypo is always something to be avoided and the medical opinion is that anything below 4 mmol/l is a hypo and is not recommended for all sorts of reasons, one of which is the health risks.
cugila
Master
- Messages
- 10,272
- Location
- Sutton Coldfield, West Midlands
- Dislikes
- People who are touchy.......feign indignation at the slightest thing. Hypocrites, bullies and cowards.
Romola said:
Diabetes UK. :twisted:
As we don't exactly go along with much of what they say (I am a member),
I don't really know what they are saying about tight controls. Their site is pretty convoluted. In the Pro section they are still quoting NICE 2008 guidelines which have been updated May 2009, so yet again we are more up to date than them ? I would stick with this site if I were you. Too many differing opinions in my view !
cugila - I have just completed an Xpert Patient course - and diabetes UK tight control levels were mentioned there. I have just checked and they were the levels I mentioned.
I have no intention of ignoring other sources of information.
I don't intend to allow myself to be brainwashed by either diabetes uk or by this forum.
I can't understand the paranoia here about diabetes uk - especially as they are quoting tighter guidelines than NICE.
I have no intention of ignoring other sources of information.
I don't intend to allow myself to be brainwashed by either diabetes uk or by this forum.
I can't understand the paranoia here about diabetes uk - especially as they are quoting tighter guidelines than NICE.
hanadr
Expert
- Messages
- 8,157
- Dislikes
- soaps on telly and people talking about the characters as if they were real.
Ken
I am a member of DUK, A service user representative. I spend a lot of time telling them that the targets are TOO High and their dietary advice unhelpful. And I'm off to the House of Commons with them this month. I also tell other people about the useful services they provide.
Yes we are diabetics, but that isn't a reason to set blood glucose targets so high. It's not easy as I wrote, but surely to be aiming for the outer ring of the target rather than the bullseye is illogical.
I didn't say you always hit it.
Yes I do know what a hypo feels like and I also have a T1 husband who had a nasty one on Monday Morning, which I had to sort out.
I don't get hypos now. I wish I had known more about non-diabetic blood sugar when diagnosed in 2003.
Setting the targets high is counterproductive. it lulls people into a false sense of security.
I thought at one time that a bg of 10 was Ok, because that was the pp target. I know it's been revised down now.
I've set my own target to under 6 AT ANY TIME. that's a target. I'm NOT a crack shot, I do miss sometimes.
Hana
I am a member of DUK, A service user representative. I spend a lot of time telling them that the targets are TOO High and their dietary advice unhelpful. And I'm off to the House of Commons with them this month. I also tell other people about the useful services they provide.
Yes we are diabetics, but that isn't a reason to set blood glucose targets so high. It's not easy as I wrote, but surely to be aiming for the outer ring of the target rather than the bullseye is illogical.
I didn't say you always hit it.
Yes I do know what a hypo feels like and I also have a T1 husband who had a nasty one on Monday Morning, which I had to sort out.
I don't get hypos now. I wish I had known more about non-diabetic blood sugar when diagnosed in 2003.
Setting the targets high is counterproductive. it lulls people into a false sense of security.
I thought at one time that a bg of 10 was Ok, because that was the pp target. I know it's been revised down now.
I've set my own target to under 6 AT ANY TIME. that's a target. I'm NOT a crack shot, I do miss sometimes.
Hana
cugila
Master
- Messages
- 10,272
- Location
- Sutton Coldfield, West Midlands
- Dislikes
- People who are touchy.......feign indignation at the slightest thing. Hypocrites, bullies and cowards.
Hana.
I agree with the levels being re-vised.I have always said that and I too am always tellin DUK what to do....they tell me where to go !! I always add a caveat to the guidelines regarding getting lower numbers if possible.
What I do disagree with is telling a NEWLY diagnosed person to go for non-diabetic levels as soon as they post on the boards. Let them read the success stories, let them settle in first. Don't frighten them off. Telling them if their numbers are astronomical that they need to go to the other extreme straight away.
Confusion is the main enemy here. There are too many websites that have conflicting information. Too much emphasis on look at me - My Bg is 4 all the time ? Great if you can do it.
Trouble is as with everything in life you have to learn how to do it. Give them some basic information. Let them take that in. Then when that is assimilated up the pace. Don't drop them in at the deep end....or was that how you learned to swim ?
We shall just have to disagree with this one. I will still post those answers when asked the question and will still encourage new diabetics to always do the best they can - for some the stars are not always achievable ? Whatever diet or medication they are on. I'm a realist.
Patch.
Yes, you're right. I think it was that crocodile burger I had last night........ :wink:
I agree with the levels being re-vised.I have always said that and I too am always tellin DUK what to do....they tell me where to go !! I always add a caveat to the guidelines regarding getting lower numbers if possible.
What I do disagree with is telling a NEWLY diagnosed person to go for non-diabetic levels as soon as they post on the boards. Let them read the success stories, let them settle in first. Don't frighten them off. Telling them if their numbers are astronomical that they need to go to the other extreme straight away.
Confusion is the main enemy here. There are too many websites that have conflicting information. Too much emphasis on look at me - My Bg is 4 all the time ? Great if you can do it.
Trouble is as with everything in life you have to learn how to do it. Give them some basic information. Let them take that in. Then when that is assimilated up the pace. Don't drop them in at the deep end....or was that how you learned to swim ?
We shall just have to disagree with this one. I will still post those answers when asked the question and will still encourage new diabetics to always do the best they can - for some the stars are not always achievable ? Whatever diet or medication they are on. I'm a realist.
Patch.
Yes, you're right. I think it was that crocodile burger I had last night........ :wink:
cugila
Master
- Messages
- 10,272
- Location
- Sutton Coldfield, West Midlands
- Dislikes
- People who are touchy.......feign indignation at the slightest thing. Hypocrites, bullies and cowards.
Romola said:
Hi Romola. Do you a have a link to these DUK tight levels .....?
I am pleased to hear you are looking for other sources of information. As I said some of it is conflicting.
This forum has no policy of brainwashing anybody, we can leave that to DUK ?
As for paranoia....when they stop telling me and others to eat plenty of starchy carbs which nearly killed me, I might then, perhaps, if I ever was, stop being paranoid. :?
:wink:No - I have searched for a link without success.
All I can tell you is that this was mentioned by the DN who ran our Xpert course in NE Essex. We even had it as a quiz question at the end. She seemed keen that we knew that the gold standard of levels to aim at were 5.5 or under before meals; and 7.5 or under two hours afterwards.
She said this was the diabetes uk tight control range.
But I can't find it on their website - mind you it isn't very easy to find much on their website.
All I can tell you is that this was mentioned by the DN who ran our Xpert course in NE Essex. We even had it as a quiz question at the end. She seemed keen that we knew that the gold standard of levels to aim at were 5.5 or under before meals; and 7.5 or under two hours afterwards.
She said this was the diabetes uk tight control range.
But I can't find it on their website - mind you it isn't very easy to find much on their website.
sugarless sue
Master
- Messages
- 10,098
- Location
- United Kingdom
- Dislikes
- Rude people! Not being able to do the things I want to do.
Thanks Romola, we couldn't find it either. That site is so difficult to find anything on !
valattrevear
Well-Known Member
Just because I am paranoid doesn't mean they aren't plotting against me :lol: :lol: .
This is the best I could find on their site, after another search. The two hours after meals target is a little higher than 7.5 though.
http://www.diabetes.org.uk/Guide-to-dia ... et-ranges/
http://www.diabetes.org.uk/Guide-to-dia ... et-ranges/
cugila
Master
- Messages
- 10,272
- Location
- Sutton Coldfield, West Midlands
- Dislikes
- People who are touchy.......feign indignation at the slightest thing. Hypocrites, bullies and cowards.
Thanks for that Romola.
Had a look and yes the levels are different, they are the levels to aim for as a non diabetic person. Here is the information.
It is important that the blood glucose levels being aimed for are as near normal as possible (that is in the range of those of a person who does not have diabetes).
These are:
3.5 - 5.5mmols/l before meals
less than 8mmols/l, 2 hours after meals.
There are many different opinions about the ideal range to aim for. As this is so individual to each person, the target levels must be agreed between the person and their diabetes team
They also quote the NICE guidelines for a T2, which they have as 2008 ? The new one is May 2009. They quote the same figures though that I posted previously. If you can get there then go for it.
Had a look and yes the levels are different, they are the levels to aim for as a non diabetic person. Here is the information.
It is important that the blood glucose levels being aimed for are as near normal as possible (that is in the range of those of a person who does not have diabetes).
These are:
3.5 - 5.5mmols/l before meals
less than 8mmols/l, 2 hours after meals.
There are many different opinions about the ideal range to aim for. As this is so individual to each person, the target levels must be agreed between the person and their diabetes team
They also quote the NICE guidelines for a T2, which they have as 2008 ? The new one is May 2009. They quote the same figures though that I posted previously. If you can get there then go for it.
But I took heart from the fact that they do say that the best control will be achieved by getting as close to non-diabetic levels as possible.
I think they realise that following conventional advice would make it very difficult to do that, so the NICE guidelines follow.
But it was good that the DN was promoting these targets.
Not so good was that she still brought out the good old eatwell plate and said that T2 s didn't need to test. I had my say as you can imagine.
She did go so far as to say that if we did test and found the reading higher than we'd like, it was probably because we had eaten too much carb. Mixed messages perhaps - but it may mean that the "restrict your carbs" seed is begining to germinate amongst the professionals.
I think they realise that following conventional advice would make it very difficult to do that, so the NICE guidelines follow.
But it was good that the DN was promoting these targets.
Not so good was that she still brought out the good old eatwell plate and said that T2 s didn't need to test. I had my say as you can imagine.
She did go so far as to say that if we did test and found the reading higher than we'd like, it was probably because we had eaten too much carb. Mixed messages perhaps - but it may mean that the "restrict your carbs" seed is begining to germinate amongst the professionals.
